November 3, 2026
| |
One-Time Wealth Tax for State-Funded Health Care Programs Initiative |
| Elections in California |
|---|
Proposition 40, also known as the California billionaire tax or California wealth tax, is a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute appearing on the November 3, 2026, ballot in the state of California.
If Proposition 40 is approved by voters, the state's billionaires would pay a one-time 5 percent tax on their accumulated wealth. Revenue from the tax would primarily fund state healthcare programs, with a smaller portion going toward food assistance and public education. Proposition 40 was sponsored by the labor union SEIU United Healthcare Workers West.
Proposition 40 was drafted by tax law professors Brian Galle of UC Berkeley, David Gamage of the University of Missouri, Darien Shanske of UC Davis, and economist Emmanuel Saez of UC Berkeley. Labor union SEIU United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW) filed the initiative. In December 2025, state attorney general Rob Bonta issued the official title and summary.
On April 26, 2026, SEIU-UHW announced that they had collected 1.6 million signatures in support of the tax, nearly double the 874,641 required to qualify for the November ballot. On June 17, the California secretary of state announced that the wealth tax had qualified for the ballot with 980,438 valid signatures.
A day later, SEIU-UHW sent a letter to California governor Gavin Newsom—an opponent of the initiative—offering to withdraw the 5% wealth tax proposal if Newsom supported a smaller 2% levy on billionaires that would be passed by the state legislature; Newsom quickly rejected the amended proposal. Negotiations stalled before the June 25 withdrawal deadline, and the initiative was certified for the November ballot.
The initiative would impose the Billionaire Tax Act, a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of the California residents worth over $1 billion. 90% of revenue from the tax would go towards state-funded healthcare programs, including Medi-Cal, while the rest would provide funding for food assistance and public education.
The eligibility cut-off outlined in Proposition 40 is January 1, 2026, meaning that if the initiative is passed by voters, billionaires who continued to hold residence in the state of California after that date will be subject to the 5% tax. Seven of the state's estimated 214 billionaires were reported to have left California before or around the deadline, including PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick, and Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. They may be subject to a residency audit to determine whether they have sufficiently severed ties with the state.
Analysis by the California Legislative Analyst's Office found the wealth tax was likely to temporarily increase revenue by up to tens of billions of dollars total, collected over several years. The analysis also found the tax would possibly decrease income tax revenue by less than $1 billion annually from billionaires leaving California.
SEIU-UHW, the labor union behind the initiative, estimated that the tax would generate $100 billion, though revenue from the billionaires who reportedly left the state prior to the deadline accounts for an estimated $29 billion of that sum, according to Fortune. Academic Kent Smetters cast doubt on SEIU-UHW's estimate, telling the Los Angeles Times that the union is "not accounting for the different ways that people can move or reclassify wealth". UC Berkeley economics professor Enrico Moretti warned that the tax "has the potential to completely destroy California's economy", and described the revenue estimate as "way overly optimistic."
The conservative-leaning Hoover Institution estimated that "permanent loss of income taxes from the departing residents indicates a high likelihood that net effect of the Billionaire Tax Act will be negative" by almost $25 billion. This conclusion was criticized by one of the bill's authors, David Gamage, who contended that the group's analysis "suggests that the billionaire tax might raise more revenue than our projections even say".
In a guest essay for The New York Times, Gabriel Zucman and initiative co-author Saez responded to concerns about billionaires fleeing the state, claiming that because billionaires are able to avoid income tax on most earnings, "even if all of them left the state, it would take 25 years for the loss of their tax payments... to surpass the amount the state would raise" if the initiative passes. In a working paper, Saez and Zucman, alongside co-author Jasper Boll of the Paris School of Economics, estimated that state income tax payments by California billionaires make up 2.4 percent of California's annual income tax revenue.
Economist Teresa Ghilarducci of the Economic Policy Institute, a pro-union think tank, considered an exodus of billionaires due to the tax unlikely, pointing to a 2022 Massachusetts 4% surtax on income above $1 million that exceeded projected revenue. Nuveen, an asset management company, also concluded billionaire outmigration was unlikely and that the tax posed minimal risk to California's credit profile and municipal bonds.
In October 2026, two Stanford University researchers—Benjamin Jaros and Joshua Rauh—ran 100,000 simulations with various possible outcomes where Proposition 40 was approved by voters. The researchers estimated that the proposed tax would cost California $39 billion in tax revenue, with 85 percent of simulated plausible scenarios showing in a net negative revenue impact.
The Tax Foundation, a center-right think tank, argued that it was possible for the effective wealth tax rate to far exceed 5% for some taxpayers due to provisions related to dual-class share structures, but acknowledged that this would be unlikely in cases where valuations are clearly incorrect. The initiative's drafters published a report arguing that this concern was based on a misreading of the text.
Forbes cited the billionaire tax initiative as the reason for a real estate boom on Nevada's side of Lake Tahoe, noting that a number of lakefront homes were purchased by California billionaires after the proposal was announced. Bill Dietz, a Lake Tahoe realtor, told the magazine that a "clear acceleration of ultra-high-net-worth buyers moving from California to Nevada" took place, driven by "tax strategy".
In late 2025, Oracle founder Larry Ellison sold his San Francisco mansion for $45 million, choosing to relocate to Nevada; venture capitalist Steve Jurvetson later did the same. In June 2026, former U.S. ambassador to Kenya Meg Whitman and her husband, neurosurgeon Griffith R. Harsh, sold a number of properties in California, including a $17.9 million fly fishing ranch, purportedly over fears that the billionaire tax would be approved by voters.
U.S. senator Bernie Sanders, a democratic socialist, has endorsed the billionaire tax. At a February 2026 Los Angeles rally in support of the tax, Sanders described billionaires as "oligarchs of the 18th century...[who] believe they have the divine right to rule". Many prominent supporters have asserted that the billionaire tax is a necessary response to the Trump administration's restrictions and cuts to Medicaid, including former U.S. secretary of labor Robert Reich, who described the tax as a "practical way to keep the healthcare system functioning".
The state branch of the Democratic Socialists of America endorsed the billionaire tax, stating that "without this funding, thousands of jobs will be lost, millions of Californians could lose coverage altogether, and care facilities across the state could be forced to close".
U.S. representative Ro Khanna, a progressive Democrat who represents much of the Silicon Valley, has expressed strong support for the tax. Some venture capitalists from Khanna's district responded by backing his unsuccessful primary challenger, Ethan Agarwal. Two 2026 Democratic gubernatorial candidates, billionaire businessman Tom Steyer and state superintendent of public instruction Tony Thurmond, endorsed the tax.
Current Affairs editor Alex Scopic argued in favor of the tax, considering it an important method of countering the "buy, borrow, die" tax avoidance strategy by billionaires. Emmanuel Saez, a co-author of the initiative, said that the tax would "preserve [healthcare and education] programs that are crucial for California's economy".

In August 2026, the California Democratic Party endorsed Proposition 40. After a failed initial endorsement vote and an unsuccessful alternative motion to adopt a neutral position on the measure, a second endorsement vote yielded 61.7 percent in favor, narrowly exceeding the 60 percent threshold for endorsement.
In September 2026, a group of six progressive Nobel laureates of economics published a letter in support of the tax, arguing that it would help address growing inequality in California and loopholes that have allowed billionaires to avoid taxes on capital gains. The economists wrote that if California passed Proposition 40, it would "kickstart a movement" to tax ultra-high-net-worth individuals elsewhere.
In February 2026, SEIU United Service Workers West (SEIU-USWW) president David Huerta and three other labor leaders filed a formal complaint against SEIU-UHW president Dave Regan, accusing him of extorting them by suggesting that he would "report unspecified governance concerns to the U.S. Department of Labor ... if [they] did not support the billionaire tax". An investigation initiated by the SEIU's national branch substantiated these claims as well as allegations from SEIU California executive director Tia Orr that Regan had threatened her by telling her to "endorse this measure ... or I'm coming for you".
A September 2026 report from SEIU California found that Regan had "engaged in a pattern of subjecting former and current SEIU California female directors to intimidating and threatening physical behavior" and substantiated former union leader Courtni Pugh's allegations that Regan physically assaulted her. Regan denied this and claimed that because Pugh worked as a political consultant against the tax, she had a reason to lie. A separate investigation found that Regan had intimidated and bullied SEIU California's government relations director, Jessica Bartholow, by standing "uncomfortably close" to her as "tensions flared over the billionaire tax" before "scream[ing] an expletive at her".
Regan dismissed the allegations as political retaliation over his support for the billionaire tax; an independent investigation found that his claims were unsubstantiated. On September 11, 2026, the California Nurses Association, who support Proposition 40, published a statement urging Regan to resign over "inappropriate, aggressive behavior and threats targeting other labor staff to support the Prop. 40 billionaire tax initiative."
California governor Gavin Newsom has vocally opposed the tax, telling Politico that the proposal "makes no sense" and is "really damaging to the state". A number of Democratic candidates who aimed to succeed Newsom in the 2026 gubernatorial election also opposed the tax, including former U.S. representative Katie Porter, former U.S. secretary of health and human services Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and San Jose mayor Matt Mahan. Republican candidates Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton expressed opposition to the tax.

Ayn Rand Institute associate fellow Robertas Bakula argued in the Los Angeles Daily News that Proposition 40's eligibility deadline of January 1, 2026, is illegal due to a constitutional ban on retroactive laws. In a February 2026 effort to curb the effects of the eligibility deadline, U.S. representative Kevin Kiley introduced a bill in Congress that would prohibit a state from levying a tax retroactively on people who no longer live in the state.
In an April 2026 editorial, The Wall Street Journal criticized wording in the act that would allow the state legislature to make amendments that could widen the scope of eligibility for the tax. In May 2026, The Washington Post publicly opposed the "self-destructive" tax, stating that the initiative "has already cost the state more in lost future revenue from income taxes than it would raise". In September 2026, the Los Angeles Times published its first editorial in 18 months, urging voters to oppose Proposition 40, claiming that it was "poorly drafted" and has "insufficient guardrails to ensure the funds are spent to actually address Californians' most pressing healthcare needs". In a later interview, former Los Angeles Times editor Mariel Garza noted that the newspaper's owner, Patrick Soon-Shiong, is a billionaire.
Building a Better California, an organization co-founded by Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt that is opposed to the billionaire tax, introduced two questions to the November 2026 ballot, which are designed to curb the effects of the billionaire tax if it passes. One, known as Proposition 41, would bar new taxes from circumventing rules on education spending requirements for tax revenue, while Proposition 42 would invalidate the billionaire tax by amending the state constitution to forbid retroactive taxation. Another measure that would've required more audits of special taxes and imposed more rules on how revenue could be spent did not qualify for the ballot.
By August 2026, Building a Better California had raised $118 million, primarily from Brin, Chris Larsen, and John Doerr. Peter Thiel has separately contributed around $100 million to an anti-Proposition 40 committee led by the California Business Roundtable.
Dozens of anti-Proposition 40 protestors staged a "pro-billionaire" march in San Francisco on February 7, 2026.
In June 2026, a number of progressive organizations announced their opposition to the billionaire tax. In a joint statement, Planned Parenthood and the California Medical Association criticized the wealth tax's ambiguity and described it as a "flawed response" to health care cuts, while the California Teachers Association stated that the billionaire tax "will not provide the sustainable and long-lasting funding that our schools and communities deserve". That same month, various California housing advocacy groups—including California YIMBY—opposed the tax, fearing that it would discourage investment and worsen the state's housing shortage.
Several California labor unions have opposed Proposition 40, arguing that the measure contains a loophole that would allow the state legislature to tax the savings and retirement accounts of all residents. The political director of the Ironworkers District Council of the State of California and Vicinity claimed that the tax would be a "trap door for working families." A representative for the Los Angeles and Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council stated that Proposition 40 would negatively impact the state budget, which relies on tax revenue from wealthy residents.
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, who would have to pay roughly $8 billion if the measure passed, stated he was "perfectly fine with it" and had "not thought about it once" when asked if he was concerned about the tax. He added that he and others "chose to live in Silicon Valley, and whatever taxes they would like to apply, so be it". The League of Women Voters of California adopted a neutral position on Proposition 40, stating that while the measure addresses "urgent needs", its one-time structure "conflicts with sound public finance principles and risks long-term revenue loss".
| Poll source | Date(s)
administered |
Sample
size |
Margin of error | Phrasing | Yes | No | Undecided |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TrueDot | October 9–14, 2026 | 909 (LV) | ±3.6% | 46% | 43% | 10% | |
| Manhattan Institute (R) | September 24 – October 1, 2026 | 1000 (LV) | ±3.1% | 35% | 50% | 15% | |
| IVC Media | September 23 – October 2, 2026 | 2906 (LV) | ±2.5% | 38% | 42% | 21% | |
| Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy | September 21–24, 2026 | 625 (LV) | ±4.0% | 48% | 38% | 14% | |
| Berkeley IGS | September 15–20, 2026 | 4512 (LV) | ±2.0% | 45% | 42% | 13% | |
| SurveyUSA | September 15–20, 2026 | 742 (LV) | ±5.5% | 48% | 40% | 12% | |
| TrueDot | September 8–14, 2026 | 2418 (RV) | ±2.7% | 46% | 40% | 14% | |
| 1983 (LV) | ±3.0% | 45% | 43% | 12% | |||
| Public Policy Institute of California | September 4–10, 2026 | 1097 (LV) | ±3.8% | 52% | 46% | 2% | |
| FM3 Research (D) | August 23–27, 2026 | 1250 (LV) | – | 44% | 47% | 8% | |
| Berkeley IGS | August 3–9, 2026 | 2310 (LV) | ±2.5% | 48% | 41% | 11% | |
| FM3 Research (D) | July 22–27, 2026 | 842 (LV) | – | 46% | 47% | 7% | |
| New River Strategies | June 23–25, 2026 | 1553 (LV) | ±2.5% | – | 57% | 38% | 5% |
| Goodwin Simon Strategic Research | June 10–15, 2026 | 607 (LV) | – | 47% | 43% | 10% | |
| Tulchin Research (D) | June 8–14, 2026 | 1000 (LV) | ±3.1% | 41% | 47% | 12% | |
| Public Policy Institute of California | May 14–18, 2026 | 986 (LV) | ±4.1% | 54% | 45% | 1% | |
| Berkeley IGS | March 9–15, 2026 | 5109 (RV) | ±2.0% | 52% | 33% | 15% | |
| TrueDot | February 25 – March 3, 2026 | 1220 (RV) | ±3.0% | 50% | 28% | 23% | |
| The Mellman Group (D) | January 6–12, 2026 | 800 (LV) | ±3.0% | 48% | 38% | 14% | |
| Nestpoint | January 2–12, 2026 | 907 (LV) | ±3.0% | – | 60% | 24% | 16% |
| David Binder Research (D) | December 6–10, 2025 | 800 (LV) | ±3.5% | 55% | 39% | 6% |
Supporters say 1.6 million people have submitted signatures favoring the Billionaire Tax Act for approval, according to the Los Angeles Times. State law requires at least 874,641 registered voters to provide signatures to county elections officials by June 24, per the outlet.
A proposed billionaire tax has some of the richest Californians eyeing the exits. First they'll have to contend with the state's dogged tax collectors.
Mr. Brin and Mr. Page still have connections to California, including homes across the state. It's unclear how much time they will be spending in the state this year.
Temporary state revenue increase from a new wealth tax on billionaires. These wealth tax revenues probably would add up to tens of billions of dollars spread over several years. Possible ongoing decrease of less than $1 billion per year in state income tax revenue collected from billionaires.
A back-of-the-envelope calculation using the 5% wealth tax metric puts the dollar figure of taxes owed by Page at about $14 billion and Brin at about $13 billion. Meanwhile 5% of Kalanick's and Thiel's wealth adds another $1.8 billion or so that brings the total potentially lost revenue to about $29 billion.
Our analysis suggests the billionaire tax – whether enacted or not – poses minimal risk to the state's credit quality and municipal bond portfolios. Historically, tax changes have rarely triggered significant population shifts among high-net-worth individuals.
While billionaires have "made important contributions," the letter added, they have also been "amply rewarded" and have used loopholes to avoid taxes on capital returns, allowing their wealth to compound further.
California's best hope for keeping its tax base is for voters to reject the ballot measure so decisively that would-be wealth-taxers are afraid to ever try it again.
Considering the paper's owner, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, happens to be a billionaire himself, the optics don't look good, according to former LA Times editorials editor Mariel Garza.
Planned Parenthood is among the large progressive organizations against the proposal, arguing the initiative does not clearly lay out how the revenue would be spent.
They include progressive groups such as the California Teachers Association and Planned Parenthood, as well as housing organizations, a hospital association and unions representing construction workers and police officers.
The wealth tax, by contrast, has received just under $10 million from SEIU-UHW to date, but it picked up another major endorser in Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).
On the controversial, proposed billionaire tax, Lee said he is a proud supporter. Lee has proposed wealth taxes at the Capitol over the last few years.
During the course of the two-hour debate, Wiener also didn't take a stance on a potential 5 percent tax on California billionaires that some unions are proposing, saying that he's waiting to see what tax measures make it to the ballot. Chan and Chakrabarti both said they supported the tax.
{{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)The Patriotic Millionaires are announcing our full organizational endorsement of Prop 40!
We suggest you vote for it despite its flaws – because nothing to reform our tax system to make it more fair is coming from Washington or Sacramento, and because a tax system this lopsided will not fix itself.
A group of Assembly Democrats are coming out against the billionaire tax with a public letter of opposition, the latest sign of opposition from establishment Democrats to the measure. The nine lawmakers, Patrick Ahrens, Anamarie Ávila Farías, Lisa Calderon, Stephanie Nguyen, Jacqui Irwin, Blanca Pacheco, Michelle Rodriguez, Catherine Stefani, and John Harabedian, write in the letter, shared first with Playbook, that the measure is "well-intentioned" but will ultimately do more harm than good.
Voters in California and Colorado will consider measures that would impose new taxes on income and wealth. CCAGW urges a "No" vote on all of them. In California, Proposition 40 would levy a one-time 5 percent tax on accumulated wealth exceeding $1 billion. Wealth taxes have a dismal track record, driving out high-contributing residents and businesses while increasing enforcement costs.
We hope this large-scale asset seizure is withdrawn. Everyone should pay their fair share, and sustainable tax policy requires that tax rates are stable, predictable, not punitive, and hard to game. Policies like a one-time asset seizure tell entrepreneurs: don't build your company here. Some billionaires have already left the state, and more are likely to follow, whether or not the seizure ultimately ends up legal or not. This will have a big negative impact on tax revenues, innovation, and the broader economy. California should focus on delivering the basics with a reasonable budget instead of chasing one-time wealth grabs that could push out the tax base we already depend on.
Prop 40 – NO Sold as a "Billionaire" tax but described as a broader wealth/savings tax (on assets including savings, 401(k)s, stocks, home equity). Contains language allowing future expansion without another public vote. Could force you to sell assets to pay the tax.